Dnia 24.11.2020 o godz. 14:37:13 @lbutlr pisze:
> > Only the copy that went through the mailing list has those,
>
> No.
>
> Please re-read what I wrote.
So, I looked through my archives and found an actual message from this
mailing list, that someone sent both to me and to list. Below are the actual
headers in their entirety - sorry for posting long uninteresting stuff to
the list, but seems there's no other way to demonstrate what I mean. :(
First the message that went through mailing list:
Return-Path: <owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org>
X-Original-To: r...@rafa.eu.org
Delivered-To: r...@rafa.eu.org
Received: from russian-caravan.cloud9.net (russian-caravan.cloud9.net
[168.100.1.4])
(using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
by rafa.eu.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AAECD40F06
for <r...@rafa.eu.org>; Sat, 6 Jun 2020 19:28:24 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by russian-caravan.cloud9.net (Postfix)
id 7A5FC3426E0; Sat, 6 Jun 2020 13:27:45 -0400 (EDT)
Delivered-To: postfix-users-outgo...@cloud9.net
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by russian-caravan.cloud9.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76C793426DA
for <postfix-users-outgo...@cloud9.net>; Sat, 6 Jun 2020 13:27:45
-0400 (EDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at cloud9.net
Received: from russian-caravan.cloud9.net ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (russian-caravan.cloud9.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new,
port 10024)
with ESMTP id vL9E6T48R-KU for <postfix-users-outgo...@cloud9.net>;
Sat, 6 Jun 2020 13:27:45 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by russian-caravan.cloud9.net (Postfix, from userid 54)
id 543BE3426E2; Sat, 6 Jun 2020 13:27:45 -0400 (EDT)
Delivered-To: postfix-us...@cloud9.net
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by russian-caravan.cloud9.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1974F3426E0
for <postfix-us...@cloud9.net>; Sat, 6 Jun 2020 13:27:45 -0400 (EDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at cloud9.net
Received: from russian-caravan.cloud9.net ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (russian-caravan.cloud9.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new,
port 10024)
with ESMTP id 1cuf_UbXmvqQ for <postfix-us...@cloud9.net>;
Sat, 6 Jun 2020 13:27:44 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mx.xenaura.com (mx.xenaura.com [104.131.165.124])
by russian-caravan.cloud9.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA74A3426DA
for <postfix-users@postfix.org>; Sat, 6 Jun 2020 13:27:44 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=sfina.com;
s=201605sfinacom; t=1591464461;
bh=sHbDD9R8M0N5Gew8gWUaOzwtex+Vk2SMhq9JdsEVnoU=;
h=Subject:From:To:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
b=pAJkiG3foTHhzylRoqaz5Bb7AelBoUxN/HR+samlGKsfamdhL51Cfa63E/l2H4c9o
/g1XmpfN1DSvpukkrH+HSRLNZSnMtaCwvy6xgJHN1TVukw8Kg4G1o3KHxjNsJK1PuR
9YvQIagrGXSV1HVOyXxSWBpunNKSNgCejHTa4DBEhxkfuqEMBtyGm1ozF624cX5pDU
PdQ1A+vi5ednV+mn4nchPHQMmihiClV7A23X2QXbAa/yHKs1WZmBRM9VNEQJNu1DS/
DoGJiu0KLohLmS0aW7J7Mv6hvR+GSe8dU3WFCrfW4yMCLLtFST/VRENy/ZupFk8zUP
Ds+mU6sfTat7g==
Message-ID: <a0a765410044fb779b453632df94ee692cd1b2a9.ca...@sfina.com>
Subject: Re: The historical roots of our computer terms
From: yuv <post...@sfina.com>
To: Jaroslaw Rafa <r...@rafa.eu.org>, postfix-users@postfix.org
Date: Sat, 06 Jun 2020 13:27:43 -0400
In-Reply-To: <20200606171208.gb22...@rafa.eu.org>
References:
<CABiY0=j8lgaflpxmczj-uz-iqd6duaj+9zjrwqs5jto7xzr...@mail.gmail.com>
<20200606171208.gb22...@rafa.eu.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: Postfix users <postfix-users@postfix.org>
List-Post: <mailto:postfix-users@postfix.org>
List-Help: <http://www.postfix.org/lists.html>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majord...@postfix.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:majord...@postfix.org>
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=3.5 tests=[LOCAL_PRECEDENCE_BULK=0.01,
T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01] bayes=0.0000 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on rafa
Content-Length: 1521
It does have the "List-Id:" header, it doesn't have "Reply-To:" as this
list, by the administrators' choice, does not set "Reply-To:" to the list.
But this list is specific, most lists set "Reply-To:" to the list address
and in that case the "Reply-To:" header would be there.
And then the copy that went directly to me:
Return-Path: <post...@sfina.com>
X-Original-To: r...@rafa.eu.org
Delivered-To: r...@rafa.eu.org
X-Greylist: delayed 453 seconds by postgrey-1.34 at rafa; Sat, 06 Jun 2020
19:35:19 CEST
Received: from mx.xenaura.com (mx.xenaura.com [104.131.165.124])
by rafa.eu.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57A7740F06
for <r...@rafa.eu.org>; Sat, 6 Jun 2020 19:35:19 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=sfina.com;
s=201605sfinacom; t=1591464461;
bh=sHbDD9R8M0N5Gew8gWUaOzwtex+Vk2SMhq9JdsEVnoU=;
h=Subject:From:To:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
b=pAJkiG3foTHhzylRoqaz5Bb7AelBoUxN/HR+samlGKsfamdhL51Cfa63E/l2H4c9o
/g1XmpfN1DSvpukkrH+HSRLNZSnMtaCwvy6xgJHN1TVukw8Kg4G1o3KHxjNsJK1PuR
9YvQIagrGXSV1HVOyXxSWBpunNKSNgCejHTa4DBEhxkfuqEMBtyGm1ozF624cX5pDU
PdQ1A+vi5ednV+mn4nchPHQMmihiClV7A23X2QXbAa/yHKs1WZmBRM9VNEQJNu1DS/
DoGJiu0KLohLmS0aW7J7Mv6hvR+GSe8dU3WFCrfW4yMCLLtFST/VRENy/ZupFk8zUP
Ds+mU6sfTat7g==
Message-ID: <a0a765410044fb779b453632df94ee692cd1b2a9.ca...@sfina.com>
Subject: Re: The historical roots of our computer terms
From: yuv <post...@sfina.com>
To: Jaroslaw Rafa <r...@rafa.eu.org>, postfix-users@postfix.org
Date: Sat, 06 Jun 2020 13:27:43 -0400
In-Reply-To: <20200606171208.gb22...@rafa.eu.org>
References:
<CABiY0=j8lgaflpxmczj-uz-iqd6duaj+9zjrwqs5jto7xzr...@mail.gmail.com>
<20200606171208.gb22...@rafa.eu.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=3.5 tests=[SPF_PASS=-0.001,
T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01] bayes=0.0000 autolearn=unavailable
autolearn_force=no
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on rafa
Not any trace of mailing list-specific headers here. Even if the list would
set "Reply-To:", there will be no "Reply-To:" on this message, as it went
directly to me, bypassing the list.
If I were an average mail user and replied to this message (by using
"Reply", not "Reply all", how could I know that I should use "Reply all" if
"Reply" was always sufficient?), the reply will go only to the original
sender and never hit the list.
If I were the same average mail user (and this list were an average mailing
list, that sets "Reply-To:" to the list) and replied to the first message
(again using regular "Reply", not "Reply all"), the reply will go to the list.
That's the difference I'm talking about all the time.
--
Regards,
Jaroslaw Rafa
r...@rafa.eu.org
--
"In a million years, when kids go to school, they're gonna know: once there
was a Hushpuppy, and she lived with her daddy in the Bathtub."
